14 January 2007
In taking a close
look at patterns of British politics in the recent decades, it is highly
necessary to critique the presidentialisation or
personality-based caricature that the leadership of the
In this essay I
will highlight how it is crucial to create a balance within the machinery of
British politics, whereby the collective nature and integrity of the cabinet is
preserved; while at the same time, maintaining the necessary leadership
qualities, character, responsibility and responsiveness that both the public as
well as parliament have come to expect.
Beginning with
the very nature of the premiership itself, it has been stated that, within the
traditional arrangement of the cabinet and its structures which balance the
level of power within central government, the prime minister has no
distinguished department, no formal constitutional powers or no distinction
from other MP’s or cabinet members.
However, this should not under
pen the initial duties in which the prime minister must assume, once taking
office. These duties being: the head of
the executive, over seeing the civil service and senior ministers as well as
the church.
He/she is the
lord of the treasury, chair of the cabinet, leader of his/her party, the image
maker of the government and, ultimately of course, the leader of the nation.
These key duties,
as pointed out by Bernard Donoughue, certainly would
place distinction within a leading capacity on the prime minister. As the role of the cabinet has been a
particular feature of British politics, as well as of course, parliament; Donoughue goes on to point out how both Harold Wilson and
James Callighan were two prime ministers who
successfully maintained the collectivism, which is central to any viable
democracy, while taking decisions upon themselves in times of crisis.
The sweeping
changes came with the entering of Margaret Thatcher into
It was Thatcher
who first introduced the (populist/outsider) presidential style, to what was
meant to be the premiership. She was the
first to distance herself from traditional links with her party.
While some have
observed that she was not a true Tory, I strongly feel, she took conservatism
to a new level; thus embodying an ideology that came to distinguish her
government.
As pointed out by
Peter Hennessy, she was only flexible when it was absolutely necessary, such as
with the crisis of the Faulklands, during which she
set up a special cabinet for the crisis itself.
Thatcher took the
cultivation of a personality-based leadership to incredible heights. However, the mere fact that she took to
extremes, the shunning of her cabinet and its ministers and a rigidly
unilateral clamp on decision making, was the very thing that signalled her
eventual downfall. Not only did she lose
three key ministers within the cabinet, she created such a degree of animosity
within her own party; by the end of her premiership, there was more weight on
the back benches, than within her immediate support circle.
In continuing
with this new presidentialisation of British
politics, Tony Blair has now taken his ‘allusions’ as a president, rather than
prime minister, to unrealistic heights.
He has tightly
grasped the very
characteristics of a
As Michael Foley
points out, Blair has created his own ‘inner circle of support and advisers,
rather than the traditional structure that has been in place in British
politics; in doing so, he has aligned himself notoriously with the likes of
President Clinton and now George W. Bush.
Blair in fact, has taken the presidential allusion as far as the
all-consuming obsession with foreign policy.
The critique being
that, he has little or no regard for domestic affairs and when he does, as
pointed out by a senior minister “Things only get dealt with when Mr. Blair
gets personally involved.”
Due to the fact
that, Blair insists on personally over seeing nearly all major domestic issues,
another critique, is that he jumps from issue to issue, failing to finalise or
solve a particular concern.
These aspects of
his premiership have been the cause of considerable resentment within his
government; so, like Thatcher, Blair has created his own demise as he is on the
way out of power.
In conclusion,
while it is important to portray one’s self as a strong leader, with the
stamina, zeal, image and confidence that is expected by any democratic electorit, it is also just as crutial
to maintain the very make up of a democratic government i.e. the collective
role of the cabinet and an ultimate respect for consensus within the
government. As mainly Thatcher and Blair
have systematically stripped away room for dissent, discussion and the balance
of power at the core of government; not only have they undermined the role of the premiership in
favour of an American style of governance, which is alien to British politics,
they are also systematically eroding away the very attributes of democracy
itself.
Hiding behind the
guise of ‘ acting within the interest of the people,
simply does not work in the present political climate. When a prime minister creates an
unprecedented power enclave at the centre of government; thus depriving their
ministers of their collective responsibilities and position, it is only natural
that resentment will flower within government.
While it is
healthy to introduce a degree of change or break with tradition, such as the
privilege of the House of Lords or questioning the nature of an unwritten
constitution in the way Blair has;
The long and
short being, the role and consensus building mechanism of the cabinet must be
firmly re-established in order for the British prime minister to sustain
respect and credibility.
Click here to return to
Dawn’s Rants